adjust_leverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, description covers write nature and liquidation risk, but lacks disclosure on idempotency, error behavior, or permission requirements beyond the prerequisite.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus one line, front-loaded with purpose and range, efficient use of words, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, risk, write nature, and prerequisite. Could mention return value or common errors, but adequate overall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds meaning: 'positionId' is existing position, 'leverage' is 1-100x multiplier. Range is clarified, but positionId semantics could be more explicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states specific verb 'change' and resource 'leverage on an existing Pear Protocol position', with range 1-100x. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'open_position' (new) and 'adjust_position' (general adjustments).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides risk warning and indicates it is a write operation, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools like 'adjust_position' which might also modify leverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.